



,^- %'^.^*/ \/^^'\/ %^.^-/ ^ 

^^ ^^'^'' ^"-/ -^^fe^ ''^-'^^^ f^'" ^" '^ ^^^^^ 



















'^bv^ 



" ' ' <^''' - . . °'/*. * ° "" 
















r - « • 


















Vo ' aO 














^^'% 








\0 -Tlf. ' ^ 



^^ o* 


















^' 








• A^-=^ - 














1^ ,♦•<>* V V »'!oL' 







spKjx'in-s 



31 |{ (M s II I \ a , 



MASS V( III siriTS 



*HK t 



M A I \ i: liOr.N DA K V glKSTlON 



NKWBl'RYPORr 
MOIIS» AKD nuK^xiTrii 
183 9. 



(b 



Jr^ 



,0 



fS" 



/j?/yy6_ 



]\[Ali\E BOUNDARY QUESTION. 



House ok Representatives, } 
Monday, February 25lh, 1839. J 

The Message of the President of the United States heiiis tinder con- 
sideration 

Mr, CusHiNG said that, in the present state of this business, he had but 
a very few remarks to make ; and in what he wished to say, he should en- 
deavor to feel admonished of the extreme tenderness of llie question, and 
of the critical position of the country. 

He would not enter into the controversy between the United States and 
Great Britain in regard to the Northeastern boundary. He could not 
condescend to debate any further that point. The United States had alrea- 
dy discussed it too long. Or, if there vvas to be any more discussion of 
that point, this House was not the place for it. This House had, in com- 
mon with the Senate, unanimously adopted a resolution affirming, in the 
most ample terms, the territorial rights of JNIaine and jNIassachuselts, the 
resolution of the House being in the following emphatic words : 

"Resolved, Tliat after a careful examination and deliberate inveslicration of tlic whole 
controversy bPlween the United States and Great Britain, relative to the Northeastern 
lioundiiry of ihe former, the House of Representatives do not entertain a doubt of tlie en- 
tire pructioability of running and inarkins that boundary in strict conformity with the stip- 
ulations of the definitive iieatv 1)1 peace of seventeen h.indred and ciorlity-tlirep ; and en- 
terlnin a per.^ect conviction of the justice an<l validity of the title of tTia "United States to 
the lull extent of all the lorritory in dispute between tlie two powers." 

With which resolution before us, he should consider it indecorous, and 
a needless waste ol'time, to re-open that question here before this House. 

But I desire (said Mr. C) to call the attention of gentlemen to the 
precise merits of the new and incidental question, which has grown up, 
that the true state of the facts may be understood in all quarters, misap- 
prehensions corrected, and the responsibility for the result rest with Great 
Britain, where it justly belongs. 

Neither the House nor the country, it seems to me, is fully alive to the 
delicacy of the relations of Great Britain and the ITiiited States at this 
moment. The Message, as suggested by the gentleman from Maine, (Mr. 
Evans,) does not. on the face of it, seem to indicate a full perception of 



this, or cstF.e up to the apparent exigency ; thoug-h reasons of state may 
have called for and may justify some suppression in this respect on the 
part of the President. 

But how stands the fact ? We have these threatening events in the 
IVorthe'ast, and these ne^v pretensions of the colonial authorities of Great 
Britain, to show what is doing there. How is it in the N)rth } We have 
heard much of the success of a distinguished paciticator in restoring a 
peaceful state of things there ; but the fires of mdignation along that whole 
line, which the misrule of Great Britain and the misconduct of the ruling 
party in Upper and Lower Canada have awakened, are smothered, not ex- 
tinguished ; and it needs but the touch of a spark to rekindle them into a 
devouring flame, to spread like lightning from Maine to Michigan. In 
the IVorthwest we find Great Britain tampering with the Indians under 
our jurisdiction ; keeping them in her pay, subsidizing ilieiii, supplying 
them with munitions of war ; preparing them as of old to dash upon our 
frontier settlements, and to subject these anew to all the horrors of savage 
warfare. How is it in the West ? Is not the whole of the vast country 
in and beyond the Rocky Mountains intruded upon and usurped by the 
subjects of Great Britain ? And, as if the British Government did not 
mean that any part of the United States should want cause of ofience a- 
gainst it, wn find it striking a deadly stab at the dearest of the vital inter- 
ests of the whole South. 

Under these circumstances, while I deprecate angry collision on the 
Northeastern frontier, as deeply as any one can, yel I tell gentlemen it 
behooves them to overlook the whole ground. Unless this all-grasping 
spirit of universal encroachment on the part of Great Britain be arrested, 
either by moderation in her councils, or by fear, the time must and will 
come, when her power and ours cannot co-exist on the continent of North 
America. And I say this, that the House may duly appreciate the im- 
portance of the present contingency. 

Now, in regard to this controversy, I shall exclude, so far as possible, 
all expression of the natural I'eelings of indignation which the pretension 
of Great Britain is fitted to awaken. That pretension is the monstrous one, 
that the treaty of peace of 1783 was a grant or concession by Great Brit- 
ain to the United States ; that it was a deed of land from her to us, and 
wherever doubts arise concerning its import, the construction is to be in 
favor of the grantor ; and that we, the people of the United States, hold 
the soil on which we dwell, not by the colonization and settlement of it 
which our forefathers accomplished at their own hazard, nor by inherit- 
ance derived from that generation to the succeeding one, nor by the vic- 
tories of the Revolution and by conquest on the field of battle, but by mere 
grant and concession from the favor of Great Britain. The same preten- 
sion she undertakes to apply to all the rights appertaining to the soil and 
sovereignty of the United States, such as the fisheries, and the navigation 
and use of the seas adjoining North America. So that, whenever Great 
Britain chooses to lay claim to any part of the United States, no matter 
how groundless and scandalous may be the claim, no matter if the tract of 
country she sets up a claim to, be and always have been occupied by us, — 
at that instant, on the mere setting up ©f the claiin, her right as the an- 
•cient sovereign of the United Slates, is revived, and she is to be intended 
to be in the possession constructively of the country claimed, and though 
not in fact having the possession, is to be sufl'ered to take possession of it, 
and to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over it until she may choose to give. 



up her claim ; converting us, the people cf the Uiiited States, as the gen- 
tleman from Virginia, (Mr Wise,) truly suggests tome, into the mere ten- 
ants at will of Great Britain. That is the pomt on which this present 
controversy, this claim on the part of Great Britain to the exclusive pos- 
session ofthe Arostook, hinges. 

This position was, for the first time, asserted by Sir Charles Vaughn, 
in 1827, in a letter to ]VIr. Clay. The territory, he said, is still in dispute. 
" The sovereijinty and jurisdiction over that country, have consequently 
remained with Great Britain, it having been in the occciipation and posses- 
sion ofthe Crown previoiishj to the conclusion oj the treaty of 1733." JNIr. 
Clay indignantly repudiated the idea that whatever territory in North A- 
merica Great Britain claims, she is to be regarded a? having occupation 
and possession oC cunsirnctirelij, as the mother country, and demands that 
" the Goveiiimeni of Tveiv Brunswick should cease from the exercise of all. 
AND EVERY ACT OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION Within tlu disputed territory, un- 
til the question of right is settled," Our Minister in Great Britain was 
instructed to meet and rebut this pretention in the most decisive terms. — 
He did so. It was attempted to be maintained by the Earl of Aberdeen 
in behalf of Great Britain, with the weapons of diplomatic chicanery and 
old mother country insolence, which belonged to such pretensions. For it 
is indeed a point impossible to be yielded by the United States. It is vi- 
tal Jo our very independence. AVe might as well return to colonial vas- 
salage again at once, as give up the assertion of our coequal indepen- 
dence, and ofthe coequal rights of soil flowing from it, which is the fun- 
damental principle of the treaty of peace. 

Now for the application of this principle. From 1783 to 1816, no mor- 
tal man heard of a claim of Great Britain covering the valley of the Aroos- 
took. The whole ofthe claim, indeed, to the disputed territory, so cal- 
led, is a progeny ofthe war of 1815. It is a belligerent device — the at- 
tempt to get possession of a tract of country lying between New Bruns- 
wick and Lower Canada. What is not hers by right, and what she could 
not obtain by conquest or purch 'se, she has endeavored to obtain by di- 
plomacy. The claim itself is groundless and absurd ; but making the 
claim, she proceeds to claim the possession also, by virtue ofthe preten- 
sion I have stated. On no other ground can Sir John Harvey undertake 
to exercise jurisdiction on the Aroostook. The lands there are held un- 
der grants ol ]Massachusetts or Maine, going back more than thirty years. 
The Governments of Massuchusetts and Maine have had jurisdiction there 
down to the present time, surveying the land, giving permits to cut tim- 
ber, removing the trespassers, and the like, just as upon lands within the 
landisputed limits of Maine. The exclusive jurisdiction of New Bruns- 
wick in this region has never been asseried and enforced as against Maine. 
For it is to be remembered that this dispute has happened on the Aroostook. 
"The arrests of individual citizens of 3Iaine, which have heretofore taken 
place, have been in the Madawaska courjtry. The Madawaska is a noth- 
erly branch ofthe St. John's, the Aroostook a southerly one, and the val- 
ley ofthe latter is in the southernmost portion of the disputed territory, 
which the King ofthe Netherlands assigned to the United States. I sup- 
pose it is on this account that Great Britain has practi-ed more forbear- 
ance in regard to the Aroostook than the JNIadawaska, and in the former 
has refrained hitherto from the attempts to enforce exclu^sive jurisdiction 
which she has practised in the latter. At any rate, the House will admit 
Great Britain has no right of exclusive jurisdiction ; thai her claim of right 



6 

is founded on a pretension utterly and palpably untenable ; that she has 
neither right of exclusive possession, nor exclusive possession in fact. 

Has the Government of the United States made any agreement con- 
ferring on her the riglit (temporarily or otherwise) to the exclusive pos- 
session of the territory ? I shall not go back to cast reflections on the 
Government of the United States. It has, in my judgment, much atoned 
for past error by the decision of its present course. A new crisis has ar- 
rived. I stand upon the correspondence between Mr. Forsyth and Mr. 
Fox, to which this affair has given rise. Whatever misconception there 
may have been concerning this, on the part of any olticers of the British 
Government, or in this country, there is, at any rate, no such agreement. 
England must now enter upon a new course of measures, Siie has not 
exercised hitherto exclusive or forcible jurisdiction on the Aroostook : she 
must now cease to claim the right to do so hereafter, under this pretended 
agreement, which the United States never made. And the conclusion to 
which I come on the whole is this : The understanding, actually had, has 
either been misconceived, or wilfully misrepresented, by the British au- 
thorities or officers in America. It does not seem even to have been so 
understood in England. At the very outsRt of th« affair, in 1827, the pro- 
posal for an understanding, it appears, came from Mr. Canning, who "sug- 
gested the propriety of abstaining on both sides, pending the suit, from 
any act of sovereignty over the contested territory." Here is the sitgges- 
tion of the under standins;. And whatever statements of it occur in the cor- 
respondence of the subordinate functionaries of the two Governments 
from that time to this, I have a remarkable declaration, mane by Lord 
Palmerston, the present Foreign Secretary, in a debate in the House of 
Commons, on the 24th April, 1837, as I find it reported in the London 
Times, 

" Sir Robert Peel s^id : Is the Province of Maine in the occupation of any part of the 
disputed territory ? 

"Lord PalrRcis'ton replied : The disputed territory, or at any rate ilie greater part of it 
is in our occupation at present, upon the understand in|r tlial neither we, nor any other 
parly, shall exercise any of the riiihts bdorging to yervianait ttrritorial sovereignty. 

"Sir R. Peel : I do nut see how any arranijeinent of that sort can lie, made, 'i'he land 
must be occupied by one party or the other. Is it occupied entirely by British subjects ?_ 

" Lord Palmerston : It is not settled at all at present ; it is occupied by vast forests <if 
wood, and it is understood that neither party is to cut the wood until the differences are 
settled in one way or the other." 

These two declarations are each very ditFeruiit from that uC Sir John 
Harvey, who undertakes an assertion by force/ of exclusive jurisdiction, 
not only unsupported by, but in direct opposition to, the declaration of 
Lord Palmerston. In resisting this pretension of Sn- John Harvey, the 
Government of Maine is right, as he is wholly wrong in making the pre- 
tension. It is a pretension which cannot and will not be tolerated in the 
United States. 

In regard to the conduct of the Government of Maine, there is one im- 
portant consideration to be borne in mind. — There is a question of State 
rights at the bottom of this. I have heard it questioned whether Maine had 
any covslilidionul poxver to do what she has done. Such is n<>t my reading 
of the Constitution. Each State has an indefeasible right to the integrity 
of her own territory, which the United States cannot curtail but with 
her coHisent. Each State has an indefeasible right to defend that 
integrity in arms, if need be, by her own force, if that of the United States 



be not at hand. Struck, she must and should strike. Such is the sacred 
right of self-preservation, sanctified by the great charter of the Union, and 
by the first principles of human action, which are superior to all the Con- 
stitutions on earth. The Constitution contains the following clause : — 

"No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops 
or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State 
or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless actually invaded, or in such imminent 
danger as will not admit of delay." 

I shall not inquire whether the Governor and Legislature of Maine did 
or did not stir in the best possible manner. That is a question passed. The 
wheel of time has rolled over it, and, in the progress of events, we have 
reached another and a graver issue. Sir John Harvey is in the act of in- 
vading the State of Msiine, and invading it under pretensions which nei- 
ther the peace nor the honor of the United States can tamely endure. The 
State of Maine possesses, under these circumstances, full constitutional 
power to arm in her own defence, and to withstand and repel hostile in- 
vasion. The power is expressly given to her by the Constitution ; and 
herein, at least, the law is not silent amid the din of arms. She had the 
power ; and she has judged, as she might and must, whether or not the 
exigency had arrived for the exercise of the power ; and, having armed 
herself, has invoked the aid of the Federal Government in defence of the 
integrity of her own soil and that of the United States. 

Of the part which it now becomes the duty of Congress to perform, I 
shall say nothing at present, because I do not wish lo anticipate or pre- 
judge the action either of the Committee on Foreign AfTairs or of the 
House. 



House of Representatives, > 
Saturday, March ad,'1839. J 

The House having resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on 
the state of the Union (Mr. Lincoln in the chair) on the bill reported by 
the Committee on Foreign Relations — 

Mr. CusHiNii obtained the floor, and, after yieldmg it for some expla- 
nations made by Mr. Saltonstall, Mr. C. referred to his wish and endea- 
vor the last evening to bring before the House the resolves on this sub- 
ject just reported in the Legislature of Massachusetts, and proceeded to 
say that his chief object in rising at the present time was to discuss the 
precise merits of the measure under consideration, and to defend the views 
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and then addressed the House, in 
substance, to the following effect. 

Without dwelling, said Mr. C. on my personal relations to this question, 
I desire to state here, what indeed is already notorious to every body, that 
it is my fixed determinatioT to stand by the State of Maine and the Gov- 
ernment of the United Slates in the positions they have respectively as- 
sumed, at whatever hazard to myself. If the pretensions of Great Brit- 
ain should unhappily force the United States into war, I shall not stop to 
dispute which of the two, my native land or its foreign enemy, is in the 



8 

right ; but I will be found in the tinted field, where death ivi to be met, or 
honor won, at the cannmi's rnoulh. 

But I do not believe that the calamitous issue of war between the United 
States and Great Britain is to follow, now at least, immediately, upon the 
events which have taken place in Maine. I hope and trust that Sir John 
Harvey will not dare to attempt the execution of the menace he has utter- 
ed, to invade the United States upon the false pretence of the right ofG. 
Britain to the exclusive jurisdiction and possession of the Aroostook. I 
hope and trust that he will pause over the crisis his rashness has brought 
on. ; that lie will hearken to the counsels of ptudence which go to him 
from the Minister of his Government here , and that he and his airogant 
pretensions will be disavowed by that Government, in view of the storm 
of indignation they have aroused in the United States. 

At th« same time, I disagree with those who would make light of these 
events, and who think it neither a grave nor a perilous contingency, when 
the Governor of New Brunswick threatens to march his foreign mercena- 
ries into the State of Maine, and that State is in arms as one man, and 
clad in all the panoply of war, to repel the invader and defend her soil from 
desecration. Whether there shall be war or not, depends not on us, but 
others ; which renders it the right and the duty of the United States to 
take such an attitude as will show to the world, that while anxious to a- 
void war, if it mav be with honor, we have no such dread of Great Brit- 
ain, or any other Power, as to truckle to it for the sake of a peace to be 
purchased with ignominy. Peace, indeed, thus obtained, would be the 
worst of disasters to the whole country ; since it would be a perpetual in- 
vitation to the aggression and insult of foreign states, and would leave to 
us nothing of independence but the name. 

Sir, it is my most anxious desire to shun each of these alternatives, both 
war and all its calamitous consequences, and peace bought with the deg- 
radation of the nation. It has been most injuriously imputed to me that I 
am unfriendly to Great Britain, because I have, on this question, and on 
other questions existing between the United States and Great Britain, 
withstood th© unjust claims of the latter, and exposed the tendency to en- 
croach on us, and to aggrandize herself at our expense, which marks her 
policy in North America. These things, it is true, I have done ; but I 
have done them not from unfriendliness to Great Britain, but in tlie dis- 
charge of a solemn duty towards my own country. If I perceive the U- 
nited States the subject of aggression in various quarters, must I conceal 
it ? May I not speak out ? Shall it be suffered to go on, year after year, 
unrebuked ? May not an American Representative, here, in the halls of 
our own Congress, raise his warning voice to the People, that they may 
interpose betimes and arrest the progress of injury ? Are we to be perpet- 
ually engaged in the domestic conflicts of party, and never to look at the 
foreign relations of the country ? Not so. This very question proves how 
wrong it is to allow such things to fall into neglect. And if I have labored 
to fix the attention of Congress and the country upon particular acts of 
Great Britain, injurious to the United States, I have not, either in lan- 
guage or in fact, exceeded the zeal which is every day manifested among 
ourselves, when the interest of one of the Stales of the Union comes in 
eonflict with that of another, or of the United States. 

One thing more in this relation. After the full explanations just made 
by my colleague (Mr. Saltonstall,) I have not a word to say in regard to 
the general tenor ©f his remarki last eveniBo-<. But there is an observa- 



9 

tion of his, which I must cootrovert, in order that this debate may trans* 
mit to future times a just idea of all the fact* involved in it. I cannot 
concur in his approbation of the character of Sir John Harvey, as gather- 
ed from the documents before us. He may be a meritorious and gallant of- 
ficer, for aught I know to the contrary ; and such is the testimony con- 
cerning him of distinguished officers of our own army, who were oppo- 
sed to him in the campaigns of Upper Canada during the last war with 
Great Britain. But the conduct of Sir John Harvey in the late events, 
as apparent in the documents before us, I feel bound in justice to the 
States of Maine and Massachusetts to say. is in my estimation any thing 
but honorable to him. 

Sir John Harvey stands self-convicted, upon his own showing, in the 
first place, of gross and culpable neglect of duty in regard to the tres- 
passes upon the disputed territory, which were the immediate cause of 
the troubles there ; and it may well be questioned whether he did not de- 
signedly connive at them, either on account of the profit the people of 
New Brunswick were deriving therefrom, or in order to strip the land, and 
thus reduce the value of the thing in dispute. Great Britain arrogates to 
herself the wardenship of the disputed territory. She undertakes to pre- 
vent trespasses upon it. Has Sir John Harvey done this ? On the con- 
trary, it was the fact, ofthe territory being overrun with depredators, which 
wearied out the patience of Maine, and caused her Government to send 
a sheriff with his ^osse, to put an end to the strip and waste of the land. 
Had Sir John Harvey taken any measures to prevent the trespasses ? Far 
from it. I:i his communication to Governor Fairfield ofthe 13th of Feb- 
ruary, the very letter in which he pretends that the territory, which 
is in dispute, " shall remain in the exclusive possession and jurisdiction of 
England until that claim shall be determined ;" and in which he says that 
*' my instructions do not permit me to suffer any interference with that 
possession and jurisdiction, until the question of right shall have been fi- 
nally decided" — in this letter, what does he say in regard to the trespasses, 
which, upon the assumed premises, it was his duty to prevent ? " I have 
given directions for a boom to be placed across the mouth of the Aroos- 
took, where the seizing officer, protected by a sufficient guard, will bo a- 
ble to prevent the passage of any timber into the St. John in the spring." 
Why did he not place a boom there before .'' Besides, the mouth of the 
Aroostook is in the Province of New Brunswick. The States of Maine 
and Massachusetts do not wish to have the timber wasted by depredators. 
They do not wish to have it sold, and the proceeds held by Great Britain. 
Sir John Harvey should have taken care that the trespasses were not com- 
mitted, as he might have done if he had chosen, the su()plies ofthe tres- 
passers being obtained in New Brunswick, as well as the timber carried 
there for sale. And yet, in another communication to Governor Fairfield, 
that ofthe 18th of February, he says : 

'= I beg leave to assure you that the extent to which those tiespasses appear to hive 
been carried, as brous^ht to my knowledge by recent occurrences, will lead me to adopt, 
without any delay, the stronuest and most efFectual (ncasures, which may be in my power, 
for putting a slop to and preventing the recurrence of such trespasses.'' 

Here is not only a distinct admission of the magnitude ofthe trespas- 
ses, and of the necessity of arresting them, but of his total neglect ofthe 
subject, if he had not wilfully shut his eyes to what could not possibly ea- 



10 

nape his notice if he had chosen to look. Does such conduct as this en- 
title Sir John Harvey to commendation ? 

But I have a more serious charge to bring agamst the Governor of 
"New Brunswick. What is the spectacle now before us ? We see the 
State of Maine in martial array. Her militia have been summoned to the 
field by thousands. She has flung out her banner to the wind. Her 
young men are marching to the frontier •, her old are gathering muni- 
tions of war and taking counsel for the public defence ; and the whole 
population of the State, with unanimity unexampled, has risen up en masse, 
for the defence of her rights and their honor. Meanwhile, alarm per- 
vades the country. The Government of the United States has been in- 
voked to the aid of Maine. Congress and the E.xecutive are absorbed 
in the consideration of the question. Irritations have been roused between 
the People of the United States and Great Britain. A flame has been 
kindled, which, it may be, blood only can quench. War, — war between 
wo nations allied in blood and m interest, — which, if it should break forth, 
would have many of the features of civil war, — may be the lamentable con- 
sequence. Whose fault is this .' To whom is the immediate blame im- 
putable ? To Sir John Harvey, and Sir John Harvey alone. If, as he 
pretends, the custody of the disputed te^ri ory belonged to him, he should 
have prevented the trespasses ; and the omissio.T to do that is the first 
fault. But he is, abov« all. to be blamed for the near approach of the 
country to war, because of the arrogant pretensions and gasconading 
threats in his eommunication of the 13th of February It was the claim 
on his part to the exclu«ive possession and jurisdiction of the Aroostook, 
and his menace to invade the State of Maine in the assertion of that 
claim, which sunramoned her people to arms. I cannot follow those who 
censure the Governor and the Legislature of Maine for undertaking to 
drive, off the trespassers, or for the language and acts of iudigfiation which 
the subsequent menace of Sir John Harvey occasioned. These were the 
acts of the whole people of Maine. They are approved in the resolves 
of the State of Massachusetts produced here last evening. On the other 
band, Sir John Harvey's pretensions have been promptly repudiated and 
denied by the Government of the United States But, above all, he has 
been pomtedly condemned and disavowed in advance, by the British Min- 
ister, in the Memoranda^ signed by him and the Secretary of State, in 
which Sir John Harvey is expressly told to stop, and is impliedly told that 
he has exceeded his instructions, and will be disavowed by hi.; Govern- 
ment. Under these circumstances, Sir John Harvey, it seems to me, de- 
serves unmitigated censure for the part he has played in the recent trans- 
actions. 

Now, for the merits of the bill before the Committee. It has been dis- 
cussed as a war-measure. Such is not my view of it. I regard it as a 
peace measure. If it contains provisions implying preparations for war, 
it also contains provisions which make a tender of peace. We hold to 
Great Britain the olive-branch of peace in one hand, though in the other 
gleams the thunderbolt of war. But, in fact, all its provisions are pacific, 
because they are provisions of mere self-defence in case ot attack. There 
is nothing aggressive in them. We have been threatened with invasion. 
We have been threatened with invasion, coupled with pretensions the most 
odious and unbearable which can be addressed to a free People. If Great 
Britain undertakes to execute these threats, if she actually invades the 



/ 11 

United States, {hen, t)ut njt otherwise, tha President has authority bj tha 
bill to array the physicri force of the country to resist and rwpel such in- 
vasion. 

This is the princide of the bill, as set forth in the first section ; whic.h 
section, instead of enlarging the pou'er already possessed by the Presi- 
dent to repel invasion, — to do which, he may by the act of 1795 call into 
the field any number of men, — in fact restrrcts that power, by specifying 
the particular assailant against which, and the precise ciicurastances under 
which, this section of the bill is to have effect. 

Olijuctions have been made to the second section, because it provides 
for the enlistment of regular troops, in case of invasion before the next 
Congress can be convened. Whether this kind of force, or volunteers, 
should be authorized, is a question of economy and expediency, of which 
it is for the House to judge. 

No objection seems to have been made to the section which places the 
whole naval force of the country in commission ; which is, indeed, small 
enough for the present exigencies of the country. 

Nor can the contingent appropriation proposed in the bill be refused, and 
mere resolutions expressive of the general opinion of the House be adopt- 
ed as a substitute of the bill, in the manner proposed by the gentleman 
from Virginia, (Mr. Wise,) without rendering the whole measure fatile 
and of no avail. 

But, independently of these questions, a general objection has been tak 
en to the measure by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Biddle,) 
and more especially to the ground assumed hy the bill, of resistance to 
any attemipt, on the part of Great Britain, to enforce, by arms, her claim 
to the exclusive possession and jurisdiction of the disputed territory in 
Maine. 

This, it is true, is an incidental issue, — the claim of Great Britain, or of 
Sir John Harvey, to the exclusive possession of the disputed territory, — and 
so far differs from the main issue, that of the ultimate right to the territory. 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has done full justice to the latter ques- 
tion, and has declared, in decisive terms, his conviction of the immoveable 
right of the United States, and of the futility of the claim of Great Britain 
to the territory in dispute. Such, indeed, is the declared opinion of every 
other gentleman, who has addressed the House on the subject. And, if 
the question of peace or war stood on the main poirit, there could, I pre- 
sume, bft hut nne sentiment in Congress and the country as to the duty of 
the United States to defend, at all risks, the rights of Maine and Massa- 
chusetts. But is it safe or wise to take issue on this incidental point, of 
the controverted right of possession ad interim, pending the negociation as 
to the ultimate right of sovereignty ? That is the question. 

In the first place, it is to be remembered, that when there is a controver- 
sy of long standing between two nations, the immediate cause of war is -ve- 
ry likely to be some subordinate fact, happening in the progress of the con- 
troversy. That is one of the evil consequences attending the protracted 
discussion of conflicting international claims. The parties becomt^ embit- 
tered on both sides. They are ^ach prone to regard the acts of the other 
with jealousy and suspicion. Their peace depends, not so much on ^e 
original merits of the diplomatic question between them as on the aeci- 
dents of daily collision. 

And this cansideration affords an answer to the suggestion mads out of 



12 ' 

doors, — not, 1 believe, in this debate, — of ihe uconver.icnce o( having the 
peace of the wliole United States subject to be y^xjt to hazard by the ex- 
cess of zeal of any one of the States, whose interest is more immediately 
affected by some pending national controversy. I dr, not admit that, thus 
far, the State of Maine has done wrong, or exceeded its constitutional pow- 
ers in this matter. And to tlie practical inconvenience here suggested, 
my reply is, that it exists in all such cases ; and where tw^ nations hava 
a grave question of long duration between them, they are always liable to 
be involved in war by the acts of indivfduals, or of inferior othcers, milita- 
ry or civil, or, as here, of a single State, by reason of incidental difiicul- 
ties growing up out of the main one, for which the whole country is and 
must be responsible, though, its Government may not have been the imme- 
diate party. This inconvenience ia not peculiar to the United States, or 
UTiputable altogether to the separate action of either of the States. 

Secondly, supposing this incidental issue to be less favorable to us than 
the main one, that is our misfortune, not our fault. Who raised this is- 
sue ? The United States or the State of Maine ? By no means. The 
State of Maine did that which it had a lawfal right to do; it sent a ;iosss 
to (he Aroostook to drive away the trespassers . Thereupon, Sir John 
Harvey, in the spirit of arrogance common to military governors of re- 
mote Colonies, sets up the claim of New Brunswick to the exclusive pos- 
session of the territory in dispute, and marches his troops to invade the 
United States. The State of Maine resists this claim to exclusive posses- 
sion ; the United States resist it. They fnust do this ; they have no al- 
ternative left them but resistance to a false claim, or a tame acquiescence 
in it, which would be disgraceful to the U. States, and would but prompt 
the continued aggression of Great Britain. And if Sir John Harvey pro- 
ceeds to execute his threat, and to march his troops into Maine, that State 
would be recreant toherself, it she did not muster to the defen-^e of her 
soil; and the Federal Government would be false to its obvious and imper- 
ative constitutional duty, if it did not prepare also to back the S'ate ot 
Maine in the defence of her soil, which is at the same time the soil of the 
United States. 

We do not propose, by this bill, any act of aggression against Great 
Britain upon this incidental point. Still less do we undertake, by aggres- 
sion in regard to this point, to bring on a resort to arms to enforce a Set- 
tlement of the main point. The bill is purely a defensive measure. And 
we have no choice in this matter. We .must, of necessity, withstand ag- 
gression in the thing, and upon the issue, presented to us by the aggre^ssor. 
And if Sir John Harvey presumes to invade the State of Maine in the as- 
sertion of this claim, snd he is upheld in this by his Government, the fact 
that it is an incidental question, or that the right in it is less incontrovert- 
ibly with us than upon ihe main question, will, in no sort, weaken the 
strength of our cause in regard to that, which, after all, would be the true 
ground of hostilities,— namely, the unfounded and iniquitous claim on the 
part of Great Britain to the ultimate sovereignty of one third of the State 
of Maine, a claim which is denounced and repudiated by us on ail hands. 

But is this an issue unsafe or unwise to be joined by the United States. 
I cannot admit that it is. 

To begin, the question of possession is one which from its nature is pe- 
culiarly intelligible to every body, while that is not the tijct as to the ques- 
tion of right. To understand the question of right fully, it needs 1o ex- 



13 

Tiniine a vast body of dooiimentar) matter, in which the proofs are contain- 
ed ; it needs to read and study the^treatises and diplomatic correspondence 
between the two Governments ; itteeds to throw off the mass of chicane- 
ry, and of disengenuous pretensionX and of perversion of fact and argu- 
ment, under , which the ministers an*d agents of Great Britain have suc- 
ceeded in burying the simple merits of tlie case ; it needs to seize a com- 
plex question, and to be master of it iriViU its parts, and its general whole. 
Not so in regard to the question now pebding, — whether the United States 
will repel invasion undertaken by Great Britain while the right is in con- 
troversy. That is the ftmiliar case of a trespass committed on my land 
by a grasping neighbor. Whether he can make out a good title in law, 
and oust me by the judgment of a competent tribunal, is a thmg, requiring 
perhaps, much discussion, and by wise and learned men, before it can be 
properly dotorrninnd . But if, pending the suit, he enters my close, and 
undertakes to drive me out, and hold exclusive possession of it, regardless 
of all the presumptions of right, that is an act of aggression, which every 
body understands at a glance, and which would justify me in repelling 
force with force. And that is the issue, plain, intelligible, practical, which 
Sir John Harvey has presented to the State of Maine, and which the Ex- 
ecutive has met in the documents before us, and which Congress is called 
upon to meet in the first section of the bill reported by the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. 

That Great Britain has no such right of possessio7i unless conferred on 
her by express agreeinent of the United States, is admitted by every one, 
because the assumed ground of right is the odious pretention, which I had 
occasion to comment upon a few days since, that whenever Great Britain 
chooses to lay claim to any part of the United States, she is thereupon to 
be taken and intended as being constructively in possession of the part so 
claimed, in virtue of her being mother country and former sovereign of the 
country; and as such to enter upon the exclusive jurisdiction of it until 
the claim be settled. Such a clnim of right, arrogant and intolerable as 
it is, no citizen of the United States will deign to listen to or entertain for 
a moment. 

Has Great Britain ever, in fact, had the exclusive possession and juris- 
diction of the territory in dispute .'' Never. Whatever rights she may 
have claimed, whatever acts she may have performed, in the valley of the 
Aroostook, certain it is that acts have been continually performed by tlie 
States of IMassachusetts and Maine wholly incompatible with the supposition 
of the practical exercise of exclusive jurisdiction on the part of Great Brit- 
ain. It may be that McLauchlan, the British warden, has seized timber 
there ; but neither he, nor any body else from New Brunswick, has ever, 
before the late affair, undertaken to seize men who acted for and repre- 
sented the State of Maine. All such arrests have taken place in the Mad- 
awaska country. It may be that McLauchlan has protested on paper a- 
gainst acts of sovereignty performed by the State of Maine, as in the case 
cited last evening by my colleague, (Mr. Saltonstall.) But what does 
this amount to ? Does it make out a case of the practical exercise of ex- 
clusive jurisdiction .^ Far from it. It is only one side of the case. To 
show a claim to jurisdiction on paper, or even isolated acts of jurisdiction, 
goes a very little way towards proving in behalf of Great Britain the prac- 
tical fact of exclusive jurisdiction and possession. To understand the 
whole case, we must look into the acts of Maine and Massachusetts^ 



14 

Novr, ti M truly stated in th« report ol" the Committee on Foreign Af- 
fcirs, that, in pursunnoe of a resolve passed in ISO'i, Massachusetts, in 
1807, granted a township on the AroostcoU, near to the meridian line which 
divides Mnine and 'New Brunswick ; and in 1808 ten thousand acres west 
of the former, after surveys and plans. I refer to these old grants to show 
that the exercise of sovereignty on oiir part is no recent thing. This, and 
what has heen done since by one State or the other, is stated generally by 
Governor Fairfield as follows :■ 

" In rpply, I Inve to say. that llic territory borclcrin? ol^ ilie Arnnst.ook rivnr has .il- 
ways lieen, ns 1 retrard tlie faRt*;, in the possnssion and undr>r the jurisdiction of Nlnssacim- 
selts and .Maine ; tliat, more ll)aH thirty years ngo,- MassficliuvcLts surveyed and granted 
large tracts pf it, wliicii liave ever^iMpe, in aon-.e way, been possessed by tlie p;r<»f"''e'=> 
and those claiming tindnr them ; t.V.it (he rcpt of it was surveyed by, and snme of it. divi- 
ded between IViassachupettg and i^iainc, snon af er the latter bprame an independent Slate; 
that bnlii Slate? iiavp lone been in tlie haliit of jrranlins permits to cnt tiinbc r tliere with- 
out being molested from any quarter; that many persons hive purchased tliese lands of 
ftlaine, and entered into (lieir artnal nccuiJation ; and (hat, in varimis otiier ways. Maine 
has exerciied a jurisdiction, which may faiiiy be regarded as exclusive, over this territo- 
ry.' 

In confirmation of til which, I have before me the last report of the 
land agent of JNIassachuseMs, giving an account of the constrtsction of a 
road to the Aroostook e.l the joint expense of Maine and Massachusetts, 
and detailing many particulars of the acts performed by him in arresting 
trespasses on the disputed territory. [ have also the report of the land 
agent of Maine referring to the same facts, sndstating the arrest of sundry 
trespassers by his order last year, and by regular civil process returnable at 
Bangor. And the same report contains the following conclusive tact : 

" Near the month of tho Little Madawaskn, I met Captain lVIcLauc!il:\n going up the 
Aroostook with .«ix men. Captain Mof^aurhlan informed tne flxtt he was sent up by tlie 
Governor to cut np the timber, and take off the teams of tiie trespassers, if he could ii» 
no other way break them up. 1 informed hirn what 1 liad done ; he said he v-ias iriud, and 
would most cheerfully co-operate wiih liie land agents of Maine and Massachusetts in 
stopping the trespassers" 

Here we have IMcLauchlan himself offering no claim to exclusive ju- 
risdiction, making no complaint of the acts of jurisdiction performed by 
Massachusetts and Maine, but on the contrary, commending their acts, 
and pledging himself to cheerfully co-operate with their land agents. 1 
have also before me the report of a recent geological survey of this tract 
of country, made by the State of Maine ; it being a limestone region, of 
great value for the cultivation of wheat, and on that account attractive to 
settlers. These documents show, moreover, that Maine was under no 
obligation to give notice to Sir John Harvey of her late movement for the 
arrest or expulsion of tlie trespassers, and committed no breach of cour- 
tesy or of right in omitting such notice. And whether or no the facts a- 
mount to proof that JMaino has had the exclusive jurisdiction and posses- 
sion of the Aroostook, — which is not the question, — they do at any rate ab- 
solutely exclude the conclusion claimed by Great Biitain. 

It is impossible, therefore, that the Legislature of Massachusetts, in 
passing the resolves of 1836, which complain of the surrender of the pos* 
Bcssion of the disputed territory by the United States Government, as cit- 
ed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Biddle,) and my colleague, 
(Mr Saltonstall,) could have m.eant to say that Great Britain did in fact 
«xewiic exclusive possession on the Aroostook. They could not hava 



15 

meant this, because they knew it was not so. They had the act.^ of each 
State before theni to show the contrary. The particular inrface?ne?ii of the 
• resolves was undoubtedly the acquiescence of the Government of the Uni- 
ted States, — a culpable acquiescence, I think, — in the acts of forcible juris- 
diction performed by the authorities of New Brunswick in the Madawas- 
ka country ; and the particular object of the resolves was to put an end to 
the separate wardenship of that country, assumed by Great Britain with- 
out formal notice to the United States, and not resisted as it should have 
: Jbeen when made known incidentally to our Government. It was indeed, 
I a subject, the diplomatic relations of vvhich were at that time involved in 
! doubt, in consequence of the procrastinations and other errors which our 
I Government had suffered in the mana<iement of the negotiation ; as I well 
know from having had occasion, at that period, to address a series of print- 
ed letters on the subject to the Governor of Massachusetts, as the means 
of replacing the facts in the public mind., and recalling them to general at- 
tention. 

Whatever room for misconception the particular phraseology of those re- 
solves may afford, there can be no doubt now as to the present views ei- 
tiier of Massachusetts or Maine. The resolves just reported by a joint 
committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts are in the following clear 
and emphatic words : 

CnMMOSWEALTn OF M A ?SA C HUSKTl S, 18^9. 

Rrsolvcs concerning the jXorlh raster it. Boundary. 

Resolved, That the present !-talo of atiairs in relation to the iNortiiea*t»rn Boundary, as 
romiiiu.Ticati'd to the Executive of tliis Comiuonweaitli by tl;e Governor of tlie State of 
Maine lurnishes a stronir redson for a<ia\n asserting our rights, and fur rc-affirminji the 
positions lieiet'ifore assumed by the Legislature of tliis Stale ajrainsl the nnwarraiitabie 
cliin\s of Great Urilain, and in (avor <>f stn.ng and vigorous measures by the Government 
of llie United States for a sjjeedy adjustment of tlie existing difficulties , in such a manne 
as sliall protect Massaciiusetts and Iviaine in the posstssion of the large tract of lerritoryr 
guarantied to. tliein by tlie treaty of peace ol ]76?>. 

Resolved, That the active measures authorized by a resolve of the Loirislature of the 
State of Maine, passed January i.'4, ]8;5!), for the prevention of depredations tipon the 
lands of Massachusetts and Maine, wore required by the exigencies ot the case, and a 
wise regard for the preservation of their inltrests in those lands, -ind were simihir in cliar- 
actt-r i(j measures adu|)l(jd l)y tlio land agents ol AJassachunelts and Maine in October last, 
and recofrnizod and approved, through their agent, by the Governnicnt of the IVoviiice 
«jf New Brunswick. 

Resolved, i hat the claim by Great Britain to the exclusive jurisdiction of the whole of 
the disputed icrritoiy, an recently asserted by the Lieutenant Governor ol Wevv Bruns- 
wick, and his avowal of a de:ci iniiiation to sustain that claim by a military fiirce, and lii.» 
denial ol the right of the Slate of iMainc to protect Irorn the lawless de[iiedations of tres- 
passers ilie Inims winch have long; been held in the actual pnssessi(jn ot Massacnuselts and 
Maine, call loudly (or the iiiimediale interference o( Ihh Federal Government; and tint 
the crisis has now airived, when the honor ot tlie nation demands the adoption of decisive 
measures loi the protection ol her citizens , anil for the preservation of the rights and in- 
terests ot two of the members ol our Confederacy. 

Resuived, That tins Coiiim<inwealth will co-operate with tiie State of Maine in all con- 
stitutioiaal measures (or the preset vaiion of the interests ftf both Stales in the lands iii tlie 
disputed terriiory, and for the speedy adjustment of the exi'ting; controversy. 

Risolved. That his Excellency the Governor be requested ti transmit a copy of these 
resdlutions to the Executive of tiie United Stales and of Maine, and to eacli ol'oui Sei.d- 
tors and Represeiitaiives in Congress. 

These resolves, and especially ihe second and third, cover the whole 
ground of the questions raised in this House. 

INeither the general right of jurisdiction, nor the practical fact of pos- 
session being in Great Britain, it only remain?; ^'^ consider whether she 



16 

has a temporary right of possession by agreement of the United States. 
This our Government positively denies. It challenges investigation of all 
the corre-gpondence between the two Governments as the conclusive means 
of settling the question. Instead of putting his hand on the pretended 
agreement, — which he could readily do if it existed, — Mr, Fox contents 
himself with protesting against the denial of it which INIr. Forsyth had 
made, and refers the point to his Government. Nay, further, he prncet-ds 
to negociate a sort of informal convention with Mr. Forsyth for sto|)ping 
the threatened movement of Sir John Harvey. Certain it is that no such 
agreement exists. 

Whether the proposals made on the one side and accepted on the other, or 
the acts or omissions of our Government, were su'^h as to justify miscon- 
struction on the part of Great Britain; and what is the true construction of 
those proposals, acts, and omissions, is a question whicl) 1 will not pre- 
sume to enter upon, after it has been so fully discussed by the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Evans ;) observing, only, that Great JBritam might as 
well misunderstand, or fall into delusions concerning, any clause of treaty 
between us, as this agreement ; that we are not to suffer for the errors 
she may commit in this way ; and that the attempt, on the part of Great 
Britain, to enlarge the actual agreement beyond the obvious import of the 
words, or to set up, instead of it, another agreement which was never made, 
onl/ tends, it seems to me, to aggravate the injury of her whole conduct 
in this matter, .md to give to the United States additional cause of com- 
plaint. 

' For there is not, never was, and cannot be, any reasonable doubt as to 
the respective rights of the parties, nor more especially as to this particu- 
lar point. What right has the Province of Nevv Brunswick to interfere in 
this matter at all ? I have before me a copy I procured some time since of 
a map, entitled " Map of the British Possessions in North America, com- 
'piled from documenls in the Colonial Department,'''' and on the bottom of it 
purporting that 'u was " ordered by the House of Commons to be prmted, 
29th of June, 1827." It is contained in a volume of the Parliamentary 
Papers for that year. On it is the meridian line, which divides JMaine from 
New Brunswick, running due north, from the source of the St. Croix, 
thence to the St. John, crossing the St. John, and proceeding north to the 
Jiead of the Ristigouchp. This line leaves the whole of the disputed ter- 
ritory west of New Brunswick, mid oid of the limits of that Province, It 
even carries the northwest angle of Nova Scotia to the north of the St. 
John, as we say it should go, and nearly to the point to which we claim. 
Such is the representation which the Colonial Department itself gives of 
the boundaries of New Brunswick ; which is confirmed by the curious fact 
that the commission granted to the Earl of Durham as Governor General 
of New Brunswick, in 1838, which I find in the public papers, describes 
that Province in correspondence with the map referred to, and, indeed, 
just as we have alwavs contended it should be described. Now, I demand 
what right the authorities of New Brui.swick have to cross the meridian 
line, which every book, map, and commission, which I have ever seen, 
like these now before me, lay? down as the western limit of that Province ? 
There is but one answer to be given to this question. Great Britain has 
been dishonest in the matter. She prefers a claim to part of the State of 
Maine, to which she knows in her own conscience she has* not a shadow 
of rightful pretension. If her construction of the Treaty of Peace be 



17 

i 

' correct, the Aroostook is in Lower Canada. But the line of Lower 

; Canada as now and ever defined by Great Britain, is near to where we 
also say it is. And so is the western as well as the southern line of New 
Brunswick. Li fact, this claim 'is contradicted by so many of her own 

f acts, that the advocacy of it involves her in a labyrinth of deceit and false- 
hood. She cannot print a map touching the disputed territory, she cannot 

, issue a commission, even at this day, which shall not give the lie direct to 

> this groundless and unjust claim, — a claim as dishonorable to her as it is in- 
sulting to the United States. 

There is but one other topic involved in this measure upon winch I de- 

, sire to be heard at this time. The Committee of Foreign Affiiirs have 
proposed an appropriation for a s;>ecial embassy to England. They have 
done this to manifest the indisposition of the United States to go to war, if 

f it may be honorably avoided, and the willingness of Congress, provided 
Sir John Harvey shall abstain from any aggressive acts in the mean time, 
to try once mor;; the effect of negociation, helbve drawing the sword in 
defence of the rights of 3Iaine. But I desire to say that, in assenting to 
this feature of the bill, I did not, and do nut, mean to be understood as 
.holding out any encouragement to Great Britain that this controversy is to 
be kept open by renewal of the evasive and fruitless negociations of the 
last ten years. No mure delays, — no more procra tination, — no more of 
the diplomatic chicanery, by which Great Britain has so long sought to ob- 
tain from the UYiited States by manoeuvre what is not hers by any just 
right, and what she cannot extoit by force. When the question was first 
started by her, it was in the shape of an ofler to buy of us this territory. 
Thus it stood at Ghent. She did not pretend, at that time, that it belong- 
ed to her under the Treaty of Paris. Next wo heard of it as a thing of 
doubt and question merely, to be made the subject of negociation and in- 
vestigation. Tlien it was magnified into a positive claim of ultimate sov- 
ereignty, and a claim of immediate possession by revival of mother coun- 

h'try jurisdiction. Next it becomes an assertion o^ actual possession. Fi- 
nally, through one stage of encroachment after another, that which in the 
outset was merely an expression of the wish of Great Britain to purchase 
this territory, because it was convenient and desirable to her, has swollen 
into an attempt to enforce by arms a pretended right of sovereignty and 
ownership coupled with exclusive possession and jurisdiction in anticipa- 
tion of (he settlement of the question of title. It is time to put a stop once 
and forever to this career of" encroachments. I would have the President, 
if in the exercise of his Executive discretion he sees fit to send a special 
minister to Great Britain, to send a minister who will speak to that coun- 
try in. the language of decision and firmness becoming the present attitude 
of the United States. I would have that minister say to Lord Palmerston, 
in such phrases of diplomatic courtesy as he may choose to employ, but so 
there shall be no mistake as to the meaning: — ''Sir, this thing has gone on 
long enough. Great Britain does not possess one jot or ti-ttle of right to the 
territory in Maine she claims. Such is the opinion of the President ; 
such is the unanimous opinion of both Houses of Congress ; such is the 
opinion of the whole people of the United States. This claim, set up on 
the part of Great Britain in the spirit of encroachment which distinguish- 
es her acts on this Continent, and pursued by contrivances and pretexts 
which are so signally dishonest that they would consign a private individ- 
ual to disgrace, musl be rcHnquislicd. The alfair has reached a crisis ir- 



18 

reconcilable with the continuance of yovir pretensions, and the continu- 
arce of amicable relations. The United States are devoted to peace, anc 
deprecate the calamities of war, and especially a war between them and f 
people allied to them by blood, and by all the ties of a close and beneficia 
intercourse ; but they cannot and will not submit to have Great Britair 
presume that she may seize, at will, upon the territory of the Union. B( 
not self-deceived. This is the true state of the question between us ; anc 
on you who raised and have persisted in it, — on you, in the face of God anc 
of man, does the responsibility for the issues of the question rest." 

Sir, I shall detain the House no longer ; and, in conclusion, I have on- 
ly to add that, as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I cordi- 
ally approve of the able report of the chairman in all its parts, and shal 
continue to give all the support in my power tu the provisions of puWIic de- 
fence here presented to Congress, and the measures which it may devolve 
on the Executive to adopt in vindication of the rights of the United States 



( 

4 

4 



W40 
























m^ 






v-;^ 

















- 4^ % • 













,* ./^X^'W^V'^ "^ "^-^^ ? 










I 









0^ **^^*. '^^ 



^=1^ 



^^ *:*^- ''^^ ^-^ "* 










^ "■* -C?* -. •*- "•" '^^ 







-^^^^ 




^vPV 








^ ^^y^\* J''^\^ '^^^S .'^^^\/'J^^.* J^ ^"^ -.-^^^ 



I 





"-^O 

.^^ 







-:* ^^ -^^ ' 










j'^^-^. -. 
















^ ^^m,^. \/ ,^, U^^,. y^, >^^^,.^ , 



.0^ 



^^^^ 



.V^ .!, 

















"'\ .^'^i-fc^^ y^-^i^-. /.C^^.-^-o 




; '^0^ 



.•1°^ 




V* ..j::^.'* q 



.^ » 



5.^r 






^o1 




^"^ "^'^ ' -<S^\o''», ^^. *" rt^^ .u'«. ^'^^ "* A^' ^^- 









^^-^^^ V 



^0 







^Ao^ 



> .^r 



WERT 
BOOKBINDING 

Grantv'ile Pa 
Ja- fee 1989 












^oV 

^^r 






.-^'^ ►: 




